Thursday, July 3, 2014
lincecum hof?
With tim lincecums second career no hitter last night it got me asking myself if he was a hall of famer. With only 95 career wins and a .600 winning percentage those dont seem like hof numbers. But in this new era of statiscal analysis i believe he is. If he has 6 more years and averages 13 wins thats around 80 wins and throw in Random wins hes likely to finish his career with 200 wins. His era will be in the low to mid 3s and his strikeouts high. But you cant compare him to a generation ago pitcher. He dominated baaeball for 3 years. He has had an above average career after that. His whip is above average and for the 6th time hes on pace for 200ks. In an era when we look at a players wins and losses a pitcher has many more credible stats. Quality starts, innings pitched, era in no decisions, whips, war etc etc. All stats that lincecum has above average numbers. Look at a guy like verlander, his numbers have fallen off as well but he doeant have two titles under his belt. When hes all done lincecum should be a first or second ballot hal of famer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hate to disagree, because I love Timmy, but I'm still going to. He's had two great years and two more good ones, but been only acceptable at best in the other seasons (despite the occasional moments of brilliance he's still able to turn in--witness the two no-hitters). I haven't seen as much of his pitching the last few years, but what I've seen makes me think he'll struggle to get anywhere near 200 wins or bring his ERA back down into the 3.00s, so his career number will just keep rising. He still strikes people out, though his rates are declining a bit. I do wonder if he could have a great second act as a reliever, especially if the Giants got creative using him (not just as a traditional closer, but as a long reliever/closer/spot-starter hybrid guy), and if that might help his credentials, but even then I think he'd be a tough sell for the HOF. The titles might help, but not to the extent they do in the NBA. I just think he wasn't good enough for long enough, as brilliant as he briefly was.
ReplyDeleteWould you consider, CC Sabbathia, Verlander, Becket, Halladay, Cliff Lee, or Johan Santana, and Cain, I can't think of any other off the top of my head right now, hall of famers?
ReplyDeleteTricky. I can't see Cain in as of now--never quite met Lincecum's peak, hasn't been good long enough. Sabathia and Santana are trickier. Santana was brilliant for a few seasons, but didn't last as long; Sabathia I don't think was as good, but was a very good pitcher longer than those other guys. It's looking like Verlander may wind up like Santana--brilliant, but done by his early 30s. I love Lee, but as amazing as he is at some things, I think he needs a few more very good years--partly because it took him a while to put it all together. Those four--Santana, Sabathia, Verlander, Lee--I think will have interesting HOF cases, but I don't think will be automatic even via advanced stats. Cain and Lincecum look like longer shots to inspire even that heated a debate. Halladay is the only one of those guys I think goes in without major debate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Cole Hamels. Like Cain and Lincecum, still a ways away, but hasn't shown much drop-off so far, and could wind up in the conversation.
ReplyDeleteTim Lincecum was dominant for a couple of years. Unfortunately, he has been pretty awful for the last couple (No-hitters aside... Electric stuff is electric stuff when it is on). Advanced stats are nice, but as you stated, the numbers are above average, not dominant. If you could just take the 3-4 great years and ignore the rest, I would totally agree, but you can't ignore the recent stuff.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that the guy is young. I don't follow the Giants, so I don't have any inkling of what has gone wrong, but he could always get "it" back, as evidenced by the two no hitters. I like the guy, and would root for him, but there are a lot of guys (including Verlander) who have done it better for longer.
With all of that said, if Verlander doesn't put together a few more good years, he will not make it to the HOF. In my opinion, he's really not close. The only active players (is Halladay still active?) that are zeroing in are Halladay, CC Sabathia, and Felix Hernandez. Clayton Kershaw, if he doesn't drop off like Lincecum, appears to be on track, but it is way early.
In terms of titles, I hate that argument. Lincecum has 2 titles as a guy who starts at best once every five days. Verlander not having titles has nothing to do with his HOF candidacy. This is the argument that people use to ignore Jack Morris' crappy 3.90 career ERA, as he was "clutch" in the playoffs. The titles argument means so much more in basketball, where a single guy can literally take over every game (Michael Jordan, for example).
By the way Brennan, thanks for the HOF post! Me and Jason love this kind of stuff!
We most certainly do love that stuff. I should have brought up King Felix, who has not only an awesome nickname, but a great track record, with potentially a good chunk of his career still ahead of him (he's still only 28). Nothing is certain, but he's well on his way (though we've seen how that can turn out).
ReplyDeleteThat nickname is terrible. LeBron James gives himself the nickname "King James." Yes. He gave it to himself. Everybody falls in love with LeBron, so the next dominating athlete has to be called "King [insert dominating athletes name here]" But he really is awesome. I just hope Kershaw keeps on this pace... I know you guys hate him, but he is the best Dodgers pitcher since Koufax, which is saying something.
ReplyDeleteKershaw is a beast. Sustainability is the key for him. Dodgers have a great lineup and if he has to pitch a lot in the postseason he might break down
ReplyDeleteBrennan is right: Kershaw is a beast. And that curveball is a beautiful thing. He's still only 26, so I think there are two routes for him: at least a few more brilliant years (he sure isn't showing any signs of slowing down, and seems to be getting even better, so this seems pretty likely), or a long and solid stretch. He has been pretty durable so far, and I'd love to see both--more brilliant years, followed by (at worst) a long solid stretch to finish off his career.
ReplyDeleteHopefully the Dodgers facilitate this by continuing to suck and not asking him to pitch in the playoffs.
Great breakdown of Lincecum's 2014, and comparisons with previous seasons. In no way imagining him regaining his peak, but definitely signs he may have figured out how to remain effective (more so than the last couple of years): http://grantland.com/features/tim-lincecum-rebound-san-francisco-giants/
ReplyDelete